Nah, just Ringo banging out C maj chords in the right channel. Kinda sounds goofy with the phasing and all
I love Don't Pass Me By. And I maintain strongly that it's Paul doing the foundation drumming and later Ringo added. You can hear McCartney's drum lick at the beginning that he would reprise for Momma Miss America.
Hey Mike... Did Yoko put the kibosh on the new Imagine set because of the impending WA Deluxe? Is a delay just a rumor? You obviously are in the know. Any word for the fans? Ron
Wouldn't it be nice if someone could simply ASK Paul and Ringo about some of these elementary questions of who played what. I would bet they both still know. Yes, it's been a long time, and memory can slip, but I'll bet a lot (of course not everything) could still be answered accurately just by asking. Seems like for whatever reason no one who is able to talk to them about their music ever asks these simple questions. Really wish someone would; they're not going to be around forever.
Interesting. I think the whole "four solo albums" angle has been way overplayed over the years, calcifying into accepted truth, despite Ringo himself -- the one who QUIT during the sessions -- saying it was his favorite, because they became "a band again" while making the WA. They were making a double album, it was taking a LONG time (by 1960s standards), so at some point it made sense to use two studios and work on multiple tracks simultaneously. Could "Blackbird" have been improved by John, George or Ringo sitting in rapt attention as Paul recorded it by himself? Could it have been improved by them adding anything to it? I think not. Most of the so-called "solo" songs on the WA were out of necessity, not animus -- "Goodnight" only required a vocal and outside orchestra; "Mother Nature's Son" only required an acoustic guitar and horns; "Julia" only required John. "While My Guitar" started as a George "solo" song, but ended up as a Beatles track, because that was what the song required. "Ob-La-Di" -- for all the mythology around it being one of the most divisive in the studio -- was a full band recording, and it was one of those supposed "sidemen" who came up with the winning arrangement (John banging the piano). More leeway than Paul usually gives his sidemen! Of course, I'm not saying that everything was rosy, and that the WA sessions didn't worsen the cracks in the Beatles' foundation (they did). Despite the camaraderie evident in the Esher demos, the India trip ended sourly, leaving John bitter ("Sexy Sadie") and George defensive ("Not Guilty"). The first song they attempted at EMI ("Revolution 1") directly led to the most controversial Beatles song of all time ("Revolution 9"), and introduced Yoko as a de facto "fifth Beatle." George felt that John wasn't giving his all during the sessions for his songs, and began a practice of wiping John's contributions that would continue until the breakup. John and George both started to bristle at some of Paul's fluffier songs -- although that didn't stop John from having fun playing the solo on "Honey Pie." Ringo felt unloved and quit for two weeks -- a canary in the Beatles coal mine if there ever was one -- but when he came back everyone's spirits were lifted, to the point where Ringo's memories of the sessions were mostly positive. To me, Pepper was much less of a "band" album -- it was a John-Paul-George (Martin) project, with George and Ringo very much treated like sidemen. In the end, they called the album "The Beatles" -- not A Doll's House or anything else -- for a reason. I don't think it was laziness -- although it could have been minimalism, to go with the blank white cover. But whether intended or not, the stark, declarative title sends a message -- "This is who we are as a band right now. It might be different from what we were a few years ago; it might not be what you want from us -- but this is us in 1968. We are The Beatles." No stories have ever emerged about Beatles taking swings at each other in the studio or outright refusing to participate on each others' songs -- stories we've heard about many other bands recording many other albums. In my opinion, most of the damage done to the band's future longevity during the WA sessions could have been healed by taking a six month (or longer) break in 1969. Unfortunately, little more than a month after the release of their longest and most fraught album, they plowed straight into Paul's "band therapy" Get Back project -- and the unhealed cracks in the foundation split wide open, and led to the whole structure becoming unfit for occupation.
A thoughtful, well-balanced post, but I have a different perspective on this particular point. The songs that you're referring to might, as you say, not have been improved by any of the absent members participating in the recording (though that might not be the case regarding some other songs, hard to say). However, the songwriting relationship between J & P, which was not what it once was, and George's growing sense of independence (or alienation), is what, in part, shapes my view of this album. This reading of the album title does not contradict the assertion that they were coming apart at the seams at the time.
Good points, I really didn't address the songwriting end of it in my post. It certainly seems that they were all writing separately by 1968 -- a product of all the solo time in India? -- although Paul has gone to great lengths (Many Years From Now book) to show that he always had a hand in John's songs, even in 1968. It is well known anecdotally that the early "George Harrison" compositions were often heavily aided by John and/or Paul; but by 1968 he was not relying on their help. The downside of all the solo songwriting is that when it came to the recording sessions, there was less of a sense of shared "ownership" in the songs themselves, which perhaps led to John "phoning in" his performances on George's songs, for example. Definitely a factor in the eventual breakup. True, and I did acknowledge that the bonds that held the Beatles together were significantly weakened during the WA sessions. My point was that the band known as "The Beatles" could still have evolved and changed without shattering completely -- even if it meant more solo and partial-group recordings -- and it wasn't the WA sessions themselves that doomed the group. Not taking an extended break in 1969 was the fatal blow, and even George (in the middle of the "winter of discontent") saw the solution -- they should have taken a breather from the band, gone off and done solo albums, and THEN gotten back together for "the Beatle thing." It might not have lasted forever, but I think The Beatles (as a functioning, active entity) could have lasted into the 1970s at least.
It's not really fair to compare Ringo's songwriting in 1968 to John & Paul's songwriting in 1968. I will gladly agree that Ringo doesn't have the innate songwriting ability of the others, but I'd suspect that Ringo's first composition stands up well to John Lennon's first written composition ("Calypso Rock," I believe) or Paul's "I Lost My Little Girl" (which, like Ringo's first song, contains a reference to "hair").
Oh, really? I’m really surprised about Lady Madonna. Great news about the Esher Demos. Is 27 the exact number recorded at Esher; with some of the tracks actually being home demo’s of Johns?
I think I'm going to go to a default mode regarding your posts, SJB - I'll simply "like" each and reply with the phrase "What he said." Because you so often state what I feel, so beautifully, and more clearly than I ever seem to be able to. And I think you hit multiple nails on the head(s), with this post especially. A few thoughts in response : Regarding the released outtakes from Sgt. Pepper, for example, I've read people post the question "how many times have I actually listened to any of them after the first few playings?" The answer was almost never. To which I must reply : that's definitely a cautionary point for both seller and buyers. Even so, I want these outtakes, and in vast numbers, so I can be content that I have heard them - that because I've heard them I better comprehend how The Beatles reached the pinnacle of those final released versions. And I need to have heard them. But yes, honestly, I don't actually need to keep hearing them regularly, I'll admit it. And there's the rub regarding what should be released from the vaults? In the final analysis, I'm deeply grateful so many outtakes now are available, because they certainly illuminate the astonishing (and sometimes admittedly tedious) process involved in making these records. As a deep admirer, it's been a privilege to experience the creative peaks and valleys of my favorite musical group ever. So I'm definitely the "some people" who'll buy any quantity of authentic archival materials, at least for some of the albums, and particularly the White Album. Assuming I'm not alone in this appetite, I think the best compromise would be the release of various-sized Anniversary packages, so we all can delve as deeply or shallowly as we choose. If Apple/UMG determine that they can make their investment back from manufacturing DEEP sets out outtakes, then that's the bottom line. I certainly think the Pepper 50th proved the buyers are there. And, contrary to other writers who think Pepper alone is an exceptionally desirable album, I think the White Album will sell just as well, because it's always been a sales juggernaut. Along with that commercial aspect, I'll go out on a limb and say it's somehow the deepest vein at the heart of all Beatles music, an album whose allure only increases with time.
I agree with this much of this post; though I’m one of those people who has always enjoyed listening to out-takes by my favourite artists & have listened to the Pepper studio sessions a LOT. I find them to be a fascinating insight into how The Beatles created their music.
Fantastic! Based on that, Mike, might I just straight-out ask : do you know the layout of the 4-track master tapes? Specifically, how many of the 4 tracks were actually recorded on for a given song? Really, all we ever heard on the Esher bootlegs were copied mixes of the 4-track tapes. Hard-panned 2-track masters, from the sound of them. Until A3 came along, when it became clear just how great the sound quality actually is. I raised the notion some pages ago that, hey, who knows - maybe individual players were allotted individual tracks on the 4-track Esher masters. Allowing for the track scenario I dream of, which is : 1) Composer's Vocal/Acoustic Guitar 2) Composer's Doubletracked Vocal/2nd Guitar 3) Other Parts recorded to a discrete track (or two) like percussion, or BV's. On the other hand, if they were recording totally "live" the layout could possibly be : 4 people playing, each into a separate mic, each mic to a separate track. Has anyone ever explored such particulars? It wouldn't be that hard to set up and, if these tapes were recorded this way, the quality could prove to be simply incredible (especially considering they were done on a professional Ampex tape deck, very likely with some nice Neumann mics on hand for just such eventualities). And, obviously, ask one question and others quickly follow : Did anyone from EMI help engineer these tapes, or was Harrison the sole engineer/tape op? And so on... Such exciting possibilities! I hope any book enclosed in the set will devote a solid chapter to the technical side of the Esher Tapes, alone. Oh, help me make it through the countdown!
One thing I liked about the 2017 Pepper mix was how Giles took some of the coolest things off the Mono mix (the phasing on LitSwD, She's Leaving Home running at the speed it was recorded at) and brought it to the stereo mix. In that vein, I hope the eerie tape-affected tremolo on the mono While My Guitar... makes it to the new stereo mix. I also wouldn't be outraged if Don't Pass Me By got sped up like on the mono mix (but that's not as much of a slam dunk for me).
A little off topic, but do any of you know the name of that DR value database that people kept linking to in the Sgt. Pepper 50th thread?
Along that line of thinking, I hope that Paul's backing/harmony vocals on "I'm So Tired" are nice and loud on the remix, just like on the mono!
It's wacky and it's wonky, just like the whole album. It belongs there, and it's a decent track. I like it.
I thought the conscientious long ago was that John played all of the instruments on "Dear Prudence." When did that change? By the way, I feel safe to say and I believe it is him playing the drums. Some of this revisionist natter that has came out in the past 20 years or so is really bizarre. All of a sudden it seems McCartney plays most of the parts on most of the tracks, blah blah blah. I never read any of that in any books about the Beatles before this internet thing. This stuff and other stuff about bands like the Stones and what Brian plays or didn't only got legs in this murky wasteland swamp that is the internet, and it's not a good thing.
Maybe, but he sure didn't play the bass. As time goes by, more and more stuff gets released, leaked or otherwise available. And not just the internet, from a lot of books as well (Lewisohn, Emerick, Martin, etc). And sometimes, what actually happened (if proven, of course) doesn't always match the common or general opinion.
Seems likely they will handle it by not including original stereo or mono mixes... [Why? 1. No original stereo in the Sgt Pepper 50th. 2. Mono white album does not have the "definitive version" mystique that accompanies Sgt. Pepper.] And I'm ok with that. Those who want the original mixes can go out and find them [although the mono is a bit harder to come by] and it leaves more room for bonus stuff without unnecessarily jacking up the price [more].
